Toilet use at Holyrood will not be ‘policed', MSPs told
Holyrood will not be policing its toilets following an interim decision to bar transgender people from using the facilities of their preferred gender, MSPs have been told.
Concerns were raised at Holyrood over this month's decision by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) on toilet facilities.
Green co-leader Patrick Harvie referenced an open letter to the parliamentary decision-making body, saying that this expressed 'serious concerns about the decision that has been made recently' to ban transgender people from the toilet facilities of their preferred gender.
The letter has been signed by 17 MSPs from four political parties, and 31 members of staff, Mr Harvie said.
Raising the issue in an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie demanded a commitment that 'nobody will be asked to provide birth certificates or other paperwork' when using a toilet if someone suspects them of being transgender.
Christine Grahame, a member of the SPCB, told the Green co-leader: 'I can assure him this is not going to be policed by the corporate body.'
She added: 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body.'
Her comments came after the SPCB announced the change earlier this month, with the move coming in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Judges there made clear the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex' – with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) stating as a result that in workplaces which are open to the public, transgender people should not be permitted to use facilities which correspond with their identified gender.
Speaking about the SPCB's decision, Ms Grahame insisted: 'There is nothing in here that will take away from the rights of anybody entering this Parliament.'
Adding that Holyrood decision makers were awaiting 'full guidance from EHRC' she said the current poliicy was 'simply interim' – appealing to those concerned about the change with 'bear with the corporate body until we are able to do a full consultation'.
Ms Grahame stressed the SPCB had made a 'collective and cross-party decision' on the matter, which sought to 'provide assurance it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all of those who work in and visit Holyrood'.
Equalities campaigners, however, had already complained the decision leaves transgender people feeling excluded at the 'heart of Scotland's democracy'.
But Ms Grahame said: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anybody in this Parliament into a hostile environment, that is not the culture within this building.
'This simply an interim decision, an interim practical choice we made to comply with Supreme Court ruling.
'There is now a full consultation going ahead and I fully expect at the end of that members will see that important balance of the rights of individuals, whatever their position, is dealt with appropriately and with sensitivity.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Wall Street futures, stocks, dollar rally as Trump tariffs hit court roadblock
European stocks and Wall Street futures rose on Thursday after a U.S. federal court blocked President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs from going into effect, sending the dollar up on safe-haven currencies. The little-known Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing his April 2 across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners. The White House quickly appealed the decision, and could take it all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. But in the meantime, it offered some hope that Trump might back away from the highest tariff levels he had threatened. Advertisement 5 A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at the opening bell in New York City, on May 27, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 'The ruling has brought a temporary sense of relief to the markets, even as uncertainty lingers over whether the administration will fully comply,' said James Leong, chief executive officer at Grasshopper Asia. 'While volatility has eased for now, the lack of clarity around the government's response could reignite market turbulence. Until the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling, we're unlikely to see a lasting resolution,' he added. Advertisement The ruling could also encourage U.S. trading partners to stall any trade negotiations they are having with the White House while they wait to see how the case is resolved. 5 Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during morning trading on May 27, 2025. Getty Images However, analysts at Goldman Sachs noted the order does not block sectoral levies, and there were other legal avenues for Trump to impose across-the-board and country-specific tariffs. 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners,' analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a note. Advertisement Europe's STOXX 600 index .STOXX was up 0.3% in early London trade. U.S. markets looked primed for a stronger reaction with S&P 500 futures ESc1 last up 1.6%. Nasdaq futures were up 2%, also benefiting from relief over earnings from which beat sales estimates. But Britain's FTSE 100 index .FTSE shrugged off the news and was last down 0.1%. 5 People stand in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm Thursday, May 29, 2025, in Tokyo. AP Advertisement 'Is this a sign that stock markets in countries who did manage to score trade deals with the US in recent weeks, could be at a disadvantage if tariffs are reversed? This could be a short-term theme to watch,' said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB. Britain was the first country to secure a trade deal with the U.S. and will hold talks with Washington next week to speed up the implementation of that deal, the Financial Times reported. Earlier in Asia, Japan's Nikkei .N225 rose 1.9%, while South Korean shares .KS11 climbed 1.9% to a nine-month high. Chinese blue chips .CSI300 firmed 0.6%. SAFE HAVENS TAKE A BACKSEAT The news of the court decision hit traditional safe-haven currencies, which have benefitted from tariff fears punishing the U.S. dollar. 5 Trump holds a chart during Liberation Day. AFP via Getty Images The dollar gained nearly 1% against the Japanese yen JPY=EBS. It later eased and but remained up 0.3%. The dollar was, meanwhile, up 0.4% against the Swiss franc CHF=EBS. Another beneficiary of dollar woes, the euro EUR=EBS dropped as much as 0.7% and was last down 0.2% against the greenback. Advertisement U.S. Treasury yields rose, adding to the pressure on the market unnerved by Trump's hefty tax and spend bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week. Yields on 10-year Treasuries US10YT=RR, which move inversely with prices,were up 4 basis points to 4.52% and markets further shaved the chance of a Federal Reserve rate cut anytime soon. 5 A customer holds a bottle as a sign that reads 'Buy Canadian Instead' is displayed after the top five U.S. liquor brands were removed from sale at B.C. Liquor Stores, as part of a response to U.S. President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. REUTERS Longer-dated, 30-year yields US30YT=RR held above the closely-watched 5% level. Advertisement Minutes of the last Fed meeting showed 'almost all participants commented on the risk that inflation could prove to be more persistent than expected' due to Trump's tariffs. A rate cut in July is now seen as around a 20% chance, while September has come in at around 60%, having been more than fully priced a month ago. 0#USDIRPR In commodity markets, gold was down 0.2% to $3,283 an ounce XAU=. GOL/ Advertisement Oil prices extended a rally first begun on supply concerns as OPEC+ agreed to leave its output policy unchanged and the U.S. barred Chevron CVX.N from exporting Venezuelan crude. O/R Brent LCOc1 rose $1 to $65.9 a barrel, while U.S. crude CLc1rose similarly to $62.84 per barrel.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon make final ruling on abortion. How did we get here?
The state Supreme Court will soon release a highly anticipated ruling about the legality of abortion in Wisconsin, a complicated question since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision sent the issue to the states. Wisconsin reverted to an 1849 statute, but the case before the state Supreme Court asks whether that law specifically bans consensual abortions. The 1849 law has been on hold since a lower court's ruling in December 2023. The state then returned to its pre-Dobbs abortion laws, under which abortion is banned 20 weeks after "probable fertilization." "We're just waiting for a final answer on that," said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "The current state of the law has been that abortions are legal, subject to other laws we have in the state." Here's a look back at how the case got to the Supreme Court and why this might not be the end of the road for legal challenges over abortion in Wisconsin: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal nationwide. In Wisconsin, there was immediate legal uncertainty about whether the 1849 law was enforceable. Planned Parenthood and other providers stopped abortion procedures. Days after the Dobbs decision, Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul — both Democrats — filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court challenging the 1849 law. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper heard arguments in the case in May 2023. In a July order, Schlipper signaled she believed the law doesn't apply to consensual abortions but to feticide — a nonconsensual act in which somebody batters a woman, causing her to lose the pregnancy. After that interpretation from Schlipper, Planned Parenthood clinics in Milwaukee and Madison resumed abortions more than a year after pausing them. A clinic in Sheboygan resumed medication abortions in late December 2023. "No court had ruled on this, so it was understandable that providers weren't sure what the state of the law was," Godar said. "But once you have a court ruling on that at any level in the state, then providers have a concrete answer." More: Abortions in Wisconsin halved immediately after Roe was overturned, new CDC report says Schlipper made her official ruling in December, determining the decades-old law doesn't prohibit abortions. While the 1849 law is not in effect, the ruling meant the state reverted to other abortion laws passed in 1985, 2011 and 2015. That includes a ban after 20 weeks, a 24-hour waiting period and requiring abortion-inducing drugs to be given in-person by physicians. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski appealed Schlipper's ruling later that month. The case jumped past appeals courts and went directly to the Supreme Court. The court heard arguments from attorneys for the parties involved in the lawsuit, which include three county district attorneys, physicians and the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services and Medical Examining Board. The court had a liberal majority at the time of oral arguments, following the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz in 2023, and kept it in the April 2025 election. Newly elected Justice Susan Crawford, who takes the bench Aug. 1, won't be one of the justices deciding the case. It's been more than six months since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. That timeline is on the longer side for the court, Godar said, but not abnormal. "It's not unexpected, given the weight and importance of this issue," she said. "It also involves some complicated legal issues, statutory interpretation — it's not surprising that it's taking this long." The court typically issues its opinions by the end of June, which marks the end of its term, but some have come out in July. More: Brad Schimel accused the Wisconsin Supreme Court of slow-walking the 1849 abortion case. Is that happening? For now, yes. The court will settle whether the 1849 statute bans consensual abortions. The case is about that narrow question, rather than determining whether there's a broad constitutional right to abortion in the state. That means the court's decision won't prevent Wisconsin lawmakers from seeking a ban on abortion in the future, Godar noted. Some Republicans have floated banning abortion after 14 weeks and asking voters to weigh in via referendum, but Evers has said he would veto any effort that makes abortion less accessible. More: What to know about referendums in Wisconsin, and why citizens can't petition for them Absolutely. There's a separate case, initiated by Planned Parenthood, asking the state Supreme Court to recognize a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, including abortion. It's not clear if the court will end up taking action on that case. That case is premised around the 1849 law banning abortion. So, if the court decides that law doesn't in fact ban abortions, the claims in the separate case would essentially go away, Godar said. "We could see future cases that argue there is a constitutional right to abortion in Wisconsin and challenge other laws that we have in the state related to abortion," she said. "But those would be a bit more nuanced than challenging an outright ban." That means groups could file specific legal challenges over rules like insurance restrictions, waiting periods or ultrasound requirements. "Even after this case, Wisconsin might continue to have uncertainty," Godar said. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin abortion law ahead of Supreme Court ruling: Where it stands
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AI-powered political fanfiction racks up views online
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, kept herself busy on Tuesday. She confronted Elon Musk in a closed-door meeting, got Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas arrested, ended the career of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and humiliated Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert. Crockett's busy — and fictional — day unfolded on 'Mr. Noah's Stories,' a YouTube channel that inserts the names of public figures into lengthy fanfiction videos. It's one of many accounts, across social media sites, that serves the appetite for dramatic, partisan stories by making them up. With little fanfare — maybe 'with jaw clenched,' as these overwritten stories often put it — Crockett's gotten a few of the fakes taken down, and ignored the rest. 'Clearly the algorithm loves my name, so people do stuff with my name,' Crockett told Semafor. 'I've just told people at this point, if it's an AI-generated voice, it's probably a lie.' Hard to avoid on TikTok, YouTube or Facebook, AI-generated slop has become a barometer of political fame, just as it has of pop culture celebrity. Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, and presidential family members regularly appear in fake stories with tidy narratives. They fly under the radar. They sometimes get more views than real-world political reporting that's not built for the algorithms. And they've become irritating, and worrying, to some members of Congress. New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, who has introduced legislation to regulate and ban AI 'deepfakes,' told Semafor that the need for reform was growing. 'We're definitely going to reintroduce it because the technology is becoming even more expansive, and with AI that supercharges it,' Clarke said. 'The ways in which our communities are victimized, particularly Black women, by deepfake technology is unacceptable.'The proliferation of fake AI stories about politicians haven't created real political problems for them yet. Other online fakery, like bogus estimates of politicians' net worth, has taken up more of their time — lies to debunk before voters start to believe them. These fake stories are very different, and tend to make their subjects look good. an illustrated story that has been reposted across Facebook's bogus news pages, suggests that the media is unfairly ignoring Hegseth's decency and charity. The most popular version of this, including an AI image that shows the defense secretary's finger stuck inside of a levitating hamburger, has been shared nearly 6,000 times. President Donald Trump and his family were some of the first subjects of this phony content mill, with less discouragement than Crockett. During last year's presidential campaign, the Trump operation shared AI images of the candidate saving pets — cats, dogs, and even some squirrels — from swarthy immigrants and raging hurricanes. In this new term, the White House has shared He-Man Trump images created with AI; most controversially, the president shared a computer-generated fantasy of Gaza, after a possible Trump takeover, on his Truth Social account. AI accounts have added to this with illustrated stories about the presidential family humiliating Trump's enemies — 'Do you know that Baron Trump has engaged in a public confrontation with the professors who signed the letter against Trump?' — or singing gospel music. (The latter is one of the many pseudo-Trump music videos from Vivo Tunes, which has more than 230,000 YouTube subscribers, and a disclaimer that its content does 'not reflect the thoughts or attitudes of the imitated artists.') The newer, more politically diverse fakery is typically about conflict, not singing contests. It's packaged like breaking news, reported from an alternate reality where clapbacks and call-outs can instantly send people to prison. It mangles some details, but gets others right; a confrontation between Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi and a non-existent liberal senator unfolds in Dirksen 226, which is indeed where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds its hearings. Since Jan. 27, when the account was created on YouTube, Mr. Noah's Stories has added more than 42,000 subscribers and clocked more than 5.6 million views. The Crockett character was introduced on March 31, when she confronted a judge with evidence of his corruption, 'walking into a storm she always knew was rigged against her.' It was a rewrite of a story that had initially starred Michelle Obama. But it was a much bigger hit. Most of the political debate about AI and deepfakes has focused on potential reputational damage — words being put into a politician's mouth, a candidate being placed at an event they never attended. After New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver gave an interview about her arrest at an ICE facility, her lips were altered to match the singing voice of a Democratic activist. That's the sort of thing Clarke's legislation could prevent. The AI fanfiction is another story, taking advantage of the freedom major social networks give to AI creators and churning out hours of strange fake news. And to be famous, in 2025, is to be faked. Crockett's emergence as an AI slop star is a function of her political stardom. Her real-life 'clapbacks,' which inspired a clothing collection run by her reelection campaign, are popular enough for the slop merchants to create dramatic imitations. Unsurprisingly, no creator of this content wanted to talk about it. (The accounts that made it possible to reach out for comment didn't reply to any questions.) They have found an audience, however small and however bot-laden, that's so hungry for political conflict stories that it'll click on Gault at 404 Media, which has broken scores of stories about AI-created content crowding out the real stuff, investigated its use in a 'slop presidency' that shares fake images to dramatize real policies. Lifehacker's Jordan Calhoun first the Crockett slop, and came up with a formula: 'The subject is a controversial media figure, the predicate is a verb that could describe both physical violence or rhetoric, and the object is a media figure. Close it off with a button and you got a YouTube AI political video.'
